Patna High Court – Orders
Binod Tiwari And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 21 April, 2026
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2320 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-234 Year-2015 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1. Binod Tiwari Son of B.N. Tiwari,
2. Ashwini Tiwari, Son of Binod Tiwari, Both residence of Pahladba, Police
Station- Katya, District- Gopalganj, at present quarter no.13C, Road No.8,
Sector-VII, Bhilai District- Durg, State- Chattisgarh.
3. Gopal Ji Pandey @ Gopalji @ Goga Tiwari, Son of C.S. Pandey,
4. Bimla Pandey, Wife of Gopalji Tiwari @ Gopalji, Both residence of Sarva
Police Station- Mairva, District- Siwan at present Housing Board Bhilai,
Police Station and District- Durg, State- Chattisgarh.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Smita Tiwari, Wife of Nagendra Tiwari, Daughter of Upendra Mishir, at
present resident of Village- Mirgichak, Police Station- Katya, District-
Gopalganj.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Rai, Advocate
Mr. Ram Priya Saran Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
12 21-04-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as
learned APP for the State.
2. This application has been filed for quashing of the
order dated 15.04.2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned
Order’)passed in Tr. No. 3514/2017 arising out of Katya P.S.
Case No. 234 of 2015 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gopalganj (hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’), whereby
cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2320 of 2018(12) dt.21-04-2026
2/10
accused persons including the present petitioners.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the marriage
of Complainant (O.P No.2) was solemnized with Nagendra
Tiwari on 27.04.2013 in accordance with Hindu rites and
customs. O.P No.2 alleged that at the time of marriage and
Dwiragaman, her parents gave cash, a motorcycle, gold
ornaments and other articles as gifts. Despite this, the husband
and his family members (petitioners herein) allegedly demanded
a four-wheeler as additional dowry. O.P No.2 further alleged
that upon non-fulfillment of the said demand, she was subjected
to cruelty and harassment by her husband and his relatives. It is
further alleged that O.P No.2 was confined in a room, deprived
of food, and threatened that she would be ousted from her
matrimonial home if the demand was not met. It is further
alleged that during the subsistence of the marriage, the
complainant became pregnant and was thereafter sent to her
parental home, where she gave birth to a child. Upon being
informed, the husband allegedly abused her and reiterated the
demand for a four-wheeler. Despite efforts made by father of to
resolve the dispute, the accused persons including petitioners
herein allegedly refused to accept her back unless their demand
was not fulfilled. On the basis of these allegations, O.P No.2 has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2320 of 2018(12) dt.21-04-2026
3/10
lodged a complaint before Learned Magistrate on 19.09.2015
which was forwarded to S.H.O of concerned P.S. where an
F.I.R was registered on 08.12.2015 under Sections 498A and
406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act against the husband and petitioner herein on the
basis of aforesaid complaint.
4. Upon perusal of complaint and case diary, the
learned Magistrate found prima facie case and accordingly took
cognizance of the offences under Sections 498A and 406 of the
Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act against all the accused persons including the
petitioners herein and transfer the case for disposal before the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj vide the
impugned order dated 15.04.2017. Aggrieved by the said order
of cognizance, the petitioner has preferred the present Criminal
Miscellaneous Application for quashing of the same.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that the impugned order taking cognizance is
wholly illegal, arbitrary and amounts to abuse of the process of
the Court. Learned counsel of petitioners further submits that
the entire prosecution case arises out of matrimonial discord
between the husband of O.P No.2 and O.P No.2 herself, and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2320 of 2018(12) dt.21-04-2026
4/10
the present petitioners, being relatives of husband, have been
falsely implicated with an ulterior motive to harass them.
Learned counsel further submits that a bare perusal of the First
Information Report/Complaint would demonstrate that the
allegations made against the petitioners are vague, general and
omnibus in nature, and no specific overt act has been attributed
to any of them so as to constitute the ingredients of the alleged
offences. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners
are residing separately and have no concern with the day-to-day
matrimonial affairs of the informant and her husband. Petitioner
No. 1, brother-in-law was working with at Banglore and was
transferred to Mumbai and his wife, Petitioner No.2 was also
residing with Petitioner No.1. Petitioner No. 3 is relative who
was working in Indian Army and now retired was residing at his
service place with his wife petitioner No.4. They were living
separately, and as such, their implication in the present case is
wholly misconceived.
6. Learned counsel further submits that prior to
lodging of the present case, the husband of O.P No.2 had
already instituted a matrimonial proceeding under Section 13 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, which clearly indicates that the present
criminal proceeding is a counterblast and has been initiated with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2320 of 2018(12) dt.21-04-2026
5/10
malafide intention. Learned counsel further submits that the
learned Magistrate, without properly appreciating the materials
available on record and without application of judicial mind, has
mechanically taken cognizance against the petitioners. It is thus
submitted that continuation of the criminal proceeding against
the present petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of
the Court, and therefore, the impugned order taking cognizance
is fit to be quashed.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P No. 2
submits that the First Information Report/Complaint clearly
discloses a prima facie case against the accused persons,
including the present petitioners, for offences punishable under
Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
8. Learned counsel further submits that at the stage of
cognizance or quashing, the Court is only required to see
whether a prima facie case is made out from the allegations in
the complaint/FIR, and a meticulous examination of evidence or
adjudication on the truthfulness of the allegations is not
permissible at this stage and the learned Magistrate has rightly
taken cognizance after due application of mind. It is thus
submitted that the present application does not warrant any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2320 of 2018(12) dt.21-04-2026
6/10
interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and is liable to be dismissed.
9. Learned APP for the State submits that petitioners
are in-laws of the informant/Complainant and there is allegation
of dowry-torture to her by the accused persons including the
petitioners. However, he has conceded that there is no specific
allegation against the petitioners and submits to pass appropriate
order considering the facts and circumstances of case.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties as
well as the learned A.P.P. for the State and upon perusal of the
materials available on record, it appears that the allegations in
the present case arise out of matrimonial discord between O.P
No.2 and her husband. The case has been instituted alleging
demand of dowry and subjecting O.P No.2 to cruelty in
connection therewith by her husband and petitioner herein
(relative of husband). The issue which falls for consideration is
as to “whether the impugned order of taking cognizance calls
for interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C”.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhishek v. State
of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2023) 16 SCC 666 has vividly
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2320 of 2018(12) dt.21-04-2026
7/10
discussed in respect of quashing criminal proceeding in
matrimonial offence against relatives of husband and held as
under:
“16. Instances of a husband’s family
members filing a petition to quash criminal
proceedings launched against them by his
wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are
neither a rarity nor of recent origin.
Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We
may now take note of some decisions of
particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan
Kausar v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC
599], this Court had occasion to deal with a
similar situation where the High Court had
refused [Mohd. Ikram v. State of Bihar, 2019
SCC OnLine Pat 1985] to quash an FIR
registered for various offences, including
Section 498-AIPC. Noting that the foremost
issue that required determination was
whether allegations made against the in-
laws were general omnibus allegations
which would be liable to be quashed, this
Court referred to earlier decisions wherein
concern was expressed over the misuse of
Section 498-AIPC and the increased
tendency to implicate relatives of the
husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court
observed that false implications by way of
general omnibus allegations made in the
course of matrimonial disputes, if left
unchecked, would result in misuse of the
process of law. On the facts of that case, it
was found that no specific allegations were
made against the in-laws by the wife and it
was held that allowing their prosecution in
the absence of clear allegations against the
in-laws would result in an abuse of the
process of law. It was also noted that a
criminal trial, leading to an eventual
acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the
accused and such an exercise ought to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2320 of 2018(12) dt.21-04-2026
8/10discouraged.”
12. In the present case, this court finds that the
allegations arise out of matrimonial discord between O.P No.2
and her husband. The prosecution case has been instituted
alleging demand of dowry and subjecting the informant to
cruelty in connection therewith by the husband and his relatives
(petitioners herein). The O.P No.2 has alleged that she was
subjected to harassment, ill-treatment and was ultimately driven
out of her matrimonial home on account of non-fulfillment of
the demand of a four-wheeler.
13. Upon a careful examination of the First
Information Report and the materials brought on record, it
transpires that the allegations levelled against the present
petitioners are general and omnibus in nature. No specific overt
act or distinct role has been attributed to any of the petitioners
so as to prima facie establish their involvement in the alleged
offences. It further appears that all the petitioners were living
separately and were not members of the matrimonial household
at the relevant time. There is nothing on record to indicate their
direct participation in the alleged acts of cruelty or demand of
dowry.
14. It is well settled that in matrimonial disputes, there
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2320 of 2018(12) dt.21-04-2026
9/10
is a tendency to implicate all the family members of the husband
without making specific and distinct allegations against them,
and the Court is required to scrutinize such allegations with care
and caution. In the absence of any prima facie material showing
active involvement of the relatives, continuation of criminal
proceedings against them would amount to abuse of the process
of the Court. It further appears that the dispute between the
parties is essentially matrimonial in nature, and the criminal
proceeding, so far as it relates to the present petitioners, does
not appear to be supported by sufficient material warranting
their prosecution.
15. It is pertinent to note that while considering a
prayer for quashing of a criminal proceeding at the threshold,
the Court is required to examine whether the allegations made in
the complaint, taken at their face value and in conjunction with
the materials brought on record, disclose the commission of any
offence so as to constitute a prima facie case against the accused
for proceeding further. This principle has been consistently
reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of Judgments
including State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors.,
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Pradeep Kumar
Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in 2025
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2320 of 2018(12) dt.21-04-2026
10/10
SCC OnLine SC 1947..
16. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal
proceeding against the present petitioners would amount to
abuse of the process of the Court, particularly when the
materials on record do not disclose the essential ingredients of
the alleged offences so far as these petitioners are concerned.
17. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
15.04.2017 passed in Tr. No. 3514/2017 arising out of Katya
P.S. Case No. 234 of 2015 by the learned Magistrate, so far as it
relates to the present petitioners, is hereby quashed.
18. Resultantly, the entire criminal proceeding arising
therefrom qua the petitioners stands set aside.
19. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application
is, accordingly, allowed.
20. The Interim Order, if any is vacated.
21. Let a copy of this Order be communicated to the
concerned Court forthwith.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Harish/-
U T